My GHEA Rocks!

MEA, AFT score wins against SB 1040

Posted on 09/05/12 at 3:03pm

The Governor's ink was barely dry on PA 300 (originally SB 1040) yesterday afternoon when MEA and AFT/Michigan were in court winning two temporary restraining orders on parts of the new law. Judge Rosemarie Aquilina issued the TROs and promised a full hearing on the constitutionality of the new law this fall.

AFT/Michigan filed its suit challenging the length of time MPSERS members have to make decisions about their pension plans and the constitutionality of pension benefit changes under SB 1040. According to the law, members have from Sept. 4 to Oct. 26 to decide if they will pay more for their pensions or not. Aquilina ruled the time period was unreasonably short. As a result, the specific ending period for making a choice will be determined by the court.

MEA's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the changes to the pension and retiree health benefits. If members want retiree health care benefits, they would have to continue to pay 3 percent under the law. Aquilina's granting of the TRO in this case declares that any elections made can be rescinded or changed if the court ultimately finds that either the pension portion or retiree health portion--or both--are unconstitutional.

The new law forces school employees to decide whether they want to make much larger pension contributions or take a reduced pension. PA 300 also requires a 20 percent health care contribution from current retirees. New hires won't be getting any retiree health care and instead will be put into a hybrid health care account plan. And the law commissions a study to examine whether moving employees to a defined contribution plan is cost effective.

Aquilina consolidated the two lawsuits so they will be considered and decided together. AFT and MEA will have the chance to file briefs on the constitutionality of SB 1040. Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 28.

Go to www.mea.org/retirement for information on SB 1040 and its impact. MEA will keep you updated as these lawsuits travel through legal channels.

Cook: 'The purpose of Prop 2 is to restore--not extend union power.'

Posted on 09/14/12 at 2:22pm

Critics of Proposal 2 to protect collective bargaining and middle class families may have lost their court challenges to keep the issue off the November ballot, but they haven't given up the fight. They're flooding the media with interviews and ads designed to scare people into voting NO on Proposal 2 with questionable and inflammatory information.
In their latest attempt to discredit Proposal 2, critics claim that passage of the amendment would mean school employees could strike and not face any fines if they did.
MEA President Cook dismisses the idea, "Proposal 2 has within it for the first time a constitutional prohibition on school employee strikes. The right of the Legislature to determine penalties for school employee strikes is untouched by Proposal 2."
Opponents have also falsely said that Proposal 2 would undo laws such as those requiring school bus drivers to receive safety training, protecting students from sexual predators, and requiring school districts to fire employees with criminal backgrounds.

• Read more

MPSERS study goes to Chicago firm

Posted on 09/14/12 at 2:24pm

A Chicago-based firm, Segal Co., has landed the $140,000 contract to conduct a legislative study called for in SB 1040--now PA 300. In addition to overhauling the insurance portion of the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS), the new law called for an outside firm to study the possibility of shutting down the current hybrid system and moving members to a 401(k) defined contribution system.

Read More

 

Will you get a refund of your 3 percent? Supreme Court will decide

Posted on 09/05/12 at 3:04pm

It will have to be the courts again to ultimately decide whether the Legislature has overstepped its bounds when it comes to school employees and their retirement benefits. Gov. Snyder is appealing a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision that the 3 percent “tax” on employees for their retiree health care is unconstitutional.

Read More